I've had with with smartphones and carriers. Seriously, I'm done..

[Tangent]

...

Anyways, I can only see benefits to this, can anyone name any negatives? Legit negatives?

Phone price and/or warranty support. Selling phones essentially pre-rooted would make it far more common that people brick their devices. (This thing is a phone, why would I need an app called Phone? *delete*) What are the options then for the manufacturer and/or carrier?

1) Replace all those devices and eat the extra cost. I think we can all agree they won't do that.

2) Deny all warranty claims if there's even the slightest whiff of it being caused by the user doing something foolish. This will cause a massive uproar that no business would want for several reasons:
- People will not be happy with any "allowed" action voiding their warranty.
- People who have no idea what they did will just see this as an attempt to get out of the expense of replacing their phone.
- People who knew damn well that they might brick their phone are still going to bitch and moan that they deserve a replacement device.
- Many people with legitimately defective phones will have warranties denied because some tool at the local mall likes screwing with people and knows he can get away with claiming "there was evidence of user tampering".

3) Increase the cost (subsidized and non) of every device to offset the extra expense of replacing all the bricked ones.


Honestly, a huge segment of the public likes their devices locked down to as close to idiot proof as you can make it. As long as they can text their friends and get on facebook they're happy. Start showing them all the neat customization their Android is capable of and how you can root and overclock the CPU and their eyes glaze over and they just say "uh-huh, cool" hoping you'll just go away so they can play more Angry Birds.

There is hope for getting unlocked phones though, and it doesn't even require a lawyer: Stop using carriers that lock devices the way AT&T and Virgin Mobile do, and stop buying devices that make it a PITA to get root. Your money + telling them why they won't be getting any more of it >>>>>>>>>>> any complaints on a message board talking about lawsuits.

 

[mpw]

...Yep, he's still stalking my posts/threads...

Egotistical, xenophobic, hypocrite, much?

 

[iavswn]

This is no different than new cars you can't fix, improve, etc.. yourself without voiding the warranty. Hell, on most new cars you can't even change the oil without voiding the warranty.

Imo, you should be able to do whatever you want with what you've bought, so being you are not breaking any laws. If you screw it up too, then thats on you. Don't blame the company for your stupidity.

In reality though, this is just more corporate control over our lives. The bastards are greedy as hell !!!!!!!

 

[Napalm]

Actually, we do. It's all about that thing called "anti-trust", and locking the phones to a specific carrier by itself is infringing.

And besides, contracts have been completely invalided in the past with laws being written so why not now?

LOL, not it is not the same. When you BUY the DEVICE, FROM THE CARRIER, then why do expect it not to have Carrier restrictions. It would be dumb of them to sell it to you at a reduced cost then wouldn't it.

So then here is your $500 phone, and uhm hope you enjoy our service and please oh please don't go elsewhere. And shame on me for trying to make money.

Personal question then, do you get welfare? Are you fully against anyone ever making a profit. have you ever made a profit.

So here is my question.

If you went to AT&T for example and you bought a phone, you signed a contract, right? So you knew what you were getting into and it was your choice. I am not sure anti-trust laws apply in this case.

You have many carriers to consider before you make your choice. Don't you?

And a cell phone is not a right, after all.

Bob is not a lawyer and he knows that he might be wrong.

Bob Maxey

Precisely. The reason AT&T or more importantly, MA Bell back in the day had the anti-trust thing slapped on them, was due to the fact that in many parts of the country they where the ONLY option around. Not that they rented the phones.

Yes but the contract is for the terms of service and not my hardware used to access the service.

What if Comcast/ATT/YOURISPHERE said you can only use their computers with their service? Would that be ok? Whats the difference?

Tell you what, get caught torrenting copyrighted materials on your comcast or AT&T data connection (wired or otherwise) and let's see if they discontinue your service due to breach of contract.



Hard ware issues, 2 examples and see if you can figure out the why.

1) your DELL computer, has windows on it from the box, plug it in and it works exactly like DELL advertised when you purchased it from them. You decide smurf microsoft and I want Ubuntu. So you load it, 3 days later your computer can't turn off, hard drive writes all the time and thus dies 2 weeks later. You call for warranty return but you didn't use the computer as per the terms of the warranty, thus voided.

See DELL at the time of the sale, doesn't know Ubuntu or anything about what drivers exist for the hardware they sell and its not their business. They don't sell Ubuntu machines. Therefore, they have to protect themselves from faulty use of their product that could lead to lawsuits and etc, hence the terms and conditions of the Warranty you also agreed to when you purchased the device. This is basicilly true for any electronic/software driven device.

2) your new BMW 5 series sedan, runs when you start it, etc etc. Requires Castrol 5-40 synethic oil according to the engineers that designed the oil pathways of the engine. So that it will last to the 100Km warranty limit based on operational parameters and limits placed in the engine computer software.

You change the oil to Mobil 1 0-40, do it your self. Hell you even use the BMW special filter as you can't find a replacement. at 65Km the engine siezes up. BMW samples the oil during the replacement (required at the dealership MX department) and find out that it has the wrong oil in it and that you have never taken it in for service. Warranty voided. Why oh why, because they are protecting themselves from other lawsuits and oh by the way you didn't read all your warranty papers when you saw that all servicing events must occur at a licensed facility.

But hey, you bought it. Now if you are willing to live without the warranty and don't care about buying another device or paying to fix it. They have fun.

Problem with your cell phone, it requires services delivered to if from some carrier to even be functionable.

Are there not UNLOCKED smartphones available to be had? Probably too many software issues. But there is nothing actually preventing it, the manufacturers just don't see a market for it. Give it time.

Hell can you build your own netbook or laptop, like you can a desktop. Why not, not much market for it.

Yes you can put a supercharger kit on a brand new 5 series BMW, but you will void your warranty.

 

[howetechnical]

Oh man... where to begin...

It's hard to tell you what points you're off on here when the points you make aren't related to the argument at hand...

What you said would be kind of like someone coming here and posting, "Well, I like ketchup and sugar. Cats are fun to pet." We just kind of read it, cock our head to the side, and wonder if you posted in the right thread...

Symbolism.

If the points were so off, why did you agree to them in your next paragraphs? Unless you meant the part about my dog, which in case, see the link above.

 

[IOWA]

I just bought an electronic appliance from Europe, but I can't plug it into my home in the United States. Different plug and different wattage and voltage. Heck, that's Anti-Trust! They made something that I can't use however and wherever I want! Let's sue somebody!

Meanwhile, the rest of us are at least OK with sticking with out carrier, otherwise we wouldn't be (minus that small number who don't like their carrier). Some things need to be left alone. The excuses and arguments people (usually Americans) come up with these days to sue somebody is lunacy. Seriously. I bet my dog will get sued one of these days for peeing on the bush outside our house, and it offends somebody's nasal passage walking by, and they'll cry that it mentally prohibited from taking that route ever again.

1.) Your comparison is 110% invalid. I didn't buy my phone from Europe.

2.) Litigation is the last resort, and I'm not looking for money. I don't even want money. I just want the rights to equipment that I bought.

3.) This does NOT need to be left alone. If people had the same attitude back when ATT restricted their landline usage to ONLY their phones, we'd still be leasing landline phones from ATT/Other companies, and so many innovations and inventions would NOT have happened. I guarantee you that if people had YOUR blissful ignorance attitude back then, (which is sadly more often the case than not now) we wouldn't even be here right now, and the internet would be in the shape it was in back in the 1990's instead of where it's at now.

People are obviously failing to see the larger picture here (no surprise).

 

[Swizz]

IOWA, what you're failing to see is that legally nothing wrong has been done. It's a dick move, sure, but not illegal. You do have the rights to make any modifications to your phone after you purchase it. The manufacturer has proprietary claims to their equipment and they have the right to protect it while it is in their possession. Nobody put a gun to your head and said "buy this locked down phone". You made the choice as a consumer to purchase the device knowing full well what you got yourself into. It may not be in the spirit of open source; but as it stands companies have a hard time accepting that there is money to be made in the open source world, and really you should be thankful that they are getting in to the Android game.

If a company does not conform to your standards, don't buy from them. Find a company that gives you what you want, if there isn't one available start one. There are so many options available to every American that suing isn't always the answer.

 

[Bob Maxey]

If there were a way to win a legal battle over this (there's not IMO), all that I would see happening is that we would have devices that have less capabilities and longer delays before releases.

(Snip a Tad)

I don't want to be the party pooper...but I think we'd have better luck suing Pepsi and telling them we like real sugar better than corn syrup.

OK, here is a question for the group.

Lets say all cellphones were factory rooted. Every part of the OS was open and available to the user. You can move, rename, delete files; download and install any software you find on the web, and there are no restrictions.

What percentage of phones would be rendered unusable because someone did something they should not have done? Lots of computers are rendered useless because the user has access to the file system; I see no change in behavior when it comes to cell phones.

I do not want to root my phone because I am happy with it. I'll upgrade to the next version of Android when (or if) Cricket releases an upgrade. If not, well, it works for me and I am satisfied.

Bob Maxey

 

[IOWA]

IOWA, what you're failing to see is that legally nothing wrong has been done. It's a dick move, sure, but not illegal. You do have the rights to make any modifications to your phone after you purchase it. The manufacturer has proprietary claims to their equipment and they have the right to protect it while it is in their possession. Nobody put a gun to your head and said "buy this locked down phone". You made the choice as a consumer to purchase the device knowing full well what you got yourself into. It may not be in the spirit of open source; but as it stands companies have a hard time accepting that there is money to be made in the open source world, and really you should be thankful that they are getting in to the Android game.

If a company does not conform to your standards, don't buy from them. Find a company that gives you what you want, if there isn't one available start one. There are so many options available to every American that suing isn't always the answer.

Yeah, and back when ATT locked landline phones to their service that was also legal. So whats your point? Things change. That's what we want, is change.

And make having root access completely optional. That fixes any of people's thoughts about bricking their phones accidentally.

And as for side-loading apps, and restricted market access, that needs to be done away with completely.

Also, don't lock stupid carrier branded apps to the phone. At least stick them into data/app instead of system/app so you DON'T need root to uninstall them.

 

[Swizz]

Yeah, and back when ATT locked landline phones to their service that was also legal. So whats your point? Things change. That's what we want, is change.

What AT&T and others were doing was monopolistic. AT&T was the only option for customers to get service and that is when the courts stepped in and said "cut the crap". That made sense to get them involved. Rehashing my point, now the consumer has choices. If Verizon was the only cell service provider and only sold one Nokia phone, you would have grounds for legal action.

If you want change, great. However, you have no legal standing to force them; you'll have to coerce them into changing through not buying from them or asking nicely.

 

[IOWA]

What AT&T and others were doing was monopolistic. AT&T was the only option for customers to get service and that is when the courts stepped in and said "cut the crap". That made sense to get them involved. Rehashing my point, now the consumer has choices. If Verizon was the only cell service provider and only sold one Nokia phone, you would have grounds for legal action.

If you want change, great. However, you have no legal standing to force them; you'll have to coerce them into changing through not buying from them or asking nicely.

What are you not understanding about trying to get laws changed to better favor the consumer?

 

[Swizz]

To change a law, you have to have merit to do so. There is no merit as the consumer is not hindered in the grand scheme, and companies have a right to protect their interests.

 

[IOWA]

To change a law, you have to have merit to do so. There is no merit as the consumer is not hindered in the grand scheme, and companies have a right to protect their interests.

There is plenty of merit in all of these.

Market - Are you saying ATT and possibly Verizon restricting App access to only ONE market isn't monopolistic by nature?

Rooting - Are you saying having admin access to your very own hardware is a bad thing somehow?

Portability - Are you saying not being able to take your hardware to another provider with compatible technology isn't monopolistic?

 

[Swizz]

Market - Are you saying ATT and possibly Verizon restricting App access to only ONE market isn't monopolistic by nature?

This is probably the only piece that has a chance to succeed. But I digress to my previous statement that the consumer wasn't forced to buy restricted handset in the first place. They chose to purchase it knowing that there were other, less restrictive, options out there. By purchasing the handset, they understood what they were getting into and the options that were made available to them. Caveat emptor.

Rooting - Are you saying having admin access to your very own hardware is a bad thing somehow?

I never said it was a bad thing, I'm saying there is no merit to sue. Which, I remind you, is what this thread is all about.

Portability - Are you saying not being able to take your hardware to another provider with compatible technology isn't monopolistic?

You can, it takes a little work but it is 100% possible. You could try and sue T-Mobile for not using the CDMA technology, but you probably wont get very far.

 

[IOWA]

This is probably the only piece that has a chance to succeed. But I digress to my previous statement that the consumer wasn't forced to buy restricted handset in the first place. They chose to purchase it knowing that there were other, less restrictive, options out there. By purchasing the handset, they understood what they were getting into and the options that were made available to them. Caveat emptor.


I never said it was a bad thing, I'm saying there is no merit to sue. Which, I remind you, is what this thread is all about.



You can, it takes a little work but it is 100% possible. You could try and sue T-Mobile for not using the CDMA technology, but you probably wont get very far.

Way to take everything out of context (sign of a bad debater, btw)

Was the consumer forced to buy a restricted handset?- YES, THEY WERE. As there are currently no other options, especially in certain circumstances where providers don't provide adequate services. So it is one and the same with my ATT reference.

Second, this thread really isn't about suing, despite the title. It's about claiming things that should already be ours.

And Third, where did I mention carriers would have to adopt each others technology? Nowhere, that's where. I said it's wrong for carriers to not let us use COMPATIBLE HARDWARE on their networks through SIM LOCKING or ESN BLACKLISTING.

 

[Swizz]

I can see that attempting to have a civil discussion with you is like arguing with a two year old. I made my point; if you want to continue pissing up hill, have fun. Closing your eyes and ears singing "lalalala" is your right.

Second, this thread really isn't about suing, despite the title.

hah.

 

[IOWA]

I can see that attempting to have a civil discussion with you is like arguing with a two year old. I made my point; if you want to continue pissing up hill, have fun. Closing your eyes and ears singing "lalalala" is your right.



hah.

Let's translate that:

"I've run out of semantics so I quit."

 

[howetechnical]

What are you not understanding about trying to get laws changed to better favor the consumer?

You say that I'm shortsighted and blissfully ignorant, yet you make a statement such as the one above. I've increased the font size of the part that is especially interesting, as it appears you yourself have not analyzed the possible end results of consumers having completely open and unlocked devices. Companies who restrict part of their device's usage have done so partly to ensure customer retention, but also to ensure customer satisfaction with said device and protect it from 3rd party infiltration through means of virii and other malware. You're screaming bloody murder on the fact that the device doesn't come from the carrier completely open and unlocked, yet I wonder what you'll be screaming when 45% of smartphone owners have to deal with the various problems that haunt PC's in today's technological era: a result of having a more opened and accessible device.

FYI: I'm very technologically progressive, enough so that my masters thesis details a new kind of security protocol for networks that could mitigate security related breaches by 3rd party software and deliberate attacks. You shouldn't assume somebody is anything unless you know for a fact that they are.

 

[howetechnical]

Rooting - Are you saying having admin access to your very own hardware is a bad thing somehow?

Yes, yes it is for most consumers (But maybe not for the all mighty genius IOWA).


I think that the only beneficial ending to this debacle is to say, when you finally acquire a lawyer who will back you up on this and file the paperwork for "IOWA vs. Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile, US Cellular, Metro PCS, Cricket, Tracfone, Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, Kajeet, and Jitterbug", please do let us know. It would be interesting to see the outcome, to say the least.

 

[IOWA]

Wow! I'm Hitler now...you're a riot, IOWA. At this time I will politely refer you to the final paragraph of my previous post. I think you've successfully killed your own thread.

And I care because you say your writing some mythical thesis (read: theory! not real, yet!) about some security protocols that have nothing to do with this topic? Oh yeah bud, you really have the upper hand here.

Looks like I missed a post.

I think that the only beneficial ending to this debacle is to say, when you finally acquire a lawyer who will back you up on this and file the paperwork for "IOWA vs. Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile, US Cellular, Metro PCS, Cricket, Tracfone, Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, Kajeet, and Jitterbug", please do let us know. It would be interesting to see the outcome, to say the least.

Let's say I'm here to rally support for a cause. Since when is fighting for a worthy cause, even it seems insignificant to some, a bad thing?

 

[howetechnical]

And I care because you say your writing some mythical thesis (read: theory! not real, yet!) about some security protocols that have nothing to do with this topic? Oh yeah bud, you really have the upper hand here.

Nope, not that (though it is quite a fine piece of technological theory, if I do say so myself). This is what I was referring to:

I think that the only beneficial ending to this debacle is to say, when you finally acquire a lawyer who will back you up on this and file the paperwork for "IOWA vs. Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile, US Cellular, Metro PCS, Cricket, Tracfone, Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, Kajeet, and Jitterbug", please do let us know. It would be interesting to see the outcome, to say the least.

EDIT: Glad to see you saw it:

Let's say I'm here to rally support for a cause. Since when is fighting for a worthy cause, even it seems insignificant to some, a bad thing?

Keyword: worthy.

 

[IOWA]

Nope, not that (though it is quite a fine piece of technological theory, if I do say so myself). This is what I was referring to:

See post #72. I missed your other post. My mistake.

And if you do have a new security layer, that's pretty sweet, but still not pertaining to this discussion.

 

[IOWA]

Nope, not that (though it is quite a fine piece of technological theory, if I do say so myself). This is what I was referring to:



EDIT: Glad to see you saw it:



Keyword: worthy.

It might not seem worthy to you, but to the slight majority, (as of right now) it does matter. If I took this poll to XDA/SDX(which I will do) how do you think the results would fair?

And as a reference, lets take the Women's right to vote. Do people see that as significant today? Of course!

But back when women were fighting for this right, something they believed in, do you think the majority, and the people in power, thought of this as worthy, or significant? No. But they still managed to overcome the odds. And honestly, my solution seems pretty reasonable, does it not?

I have something known as persistence, and I get things done. I've overcome the odds more often than not, and usually, I don't take "no" for an answer. I run a business, and if we took "no" for an answer (as with many, MANY business owners) we wouldn't have been in business very long, if at all.

EDIT2: And as seeing as your from CA, I figured you'd be all over this (on my side) as it seems like a very "Liberal" concept.

But then again, I'm a person who leans conservative/republican in Chicago, so these things DO happen

 

[OfTheDamned]

Deep breathes everyone deep breathes.

Keep things civil and lay off the offensive language or the discussion will have to end.

 

[howetechnical]

See post #72. I missed your other post. My mistake.

And if you do have a new security layer, that's pretty sweet, but still not pertaining to this discussion.

Thanks for the complement. I only mentioned it as you said that I was blissfuly ignorant and shortsighted with your insinuation that with more people like me, we'd still be at 1990. You're right that it's not at all pertinent to the discussion at hand, but then again, neither is your reference to women's rights. Just sayin' .

Anyway, good luck with your pursuit, and I do hope that it instigates changes with carriers to an extent.

P.s., much like you, I'm a conservative-liberal leaning on the republican side. I don't share the same Prius driving Obama loving culture that most here do, haha. <politics />